I have collected as many of the briefs as I can find at
http://votelaw.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_ww_archive.html#200137359.
At 07:50 PM 4/11/03 -0400, Lisa Danetz wrote:
NVRI also filed an amicus brief, on behalf of ReclaimDemocracy.org, because
the issues involved in the Nike case are the same as those at the heart of
corporate participation in the political process-namely, to what degree may
the government regulate corporate "speech" that does not fit the Supreme
Court's definition of "commercial speech"?
NVRI's brief argues that Kasky's lawsuit does not violate the First
Amendment because corporations have no right to lie about their own
operations and because they are not entitled to the same constitutional
protection as individuals. The brief argues that corporations are not
persons and should be subject to more extensive regulation than individuals.
Thus, while an individual has a right to lie because personal
self-expression is protected speech, there is no reason to make such
allowances for corporations, which are creations of the state. The Nike case
directly presents the question whether these state-created entities should
be able to rely on the First Amendment in their distortion of public debate.
As such, the case could have far-reaching implications for the field of
campaign finance law.
You can see the brief at www.nvri.org <http://www.nvri.org> or open the
attached .pdf file.
Lisa J. Danetz
Staff Attorney
National Voting Rights Institute
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On
Behalf Of Trevor Potter
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:32 PM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Nike case-corporate speech and CFR
A recent amicus brief filed the Nike case , discussing the constitutional
protection afforded corporate speech, may be of interest to the ListServe
because of its potential for effecting campaign finance law.
Trevor Potter
Nike v. Kasky Amicus Brief
In t its friend-of-the-court brief, the Campaign Legal Center argues
that the Court, as it considers the proper level of protection to give
speech by corporations , should be careful not to undermine its campaign
finance law jurisprudence . In those cases, the Court has firmly
established that corporate participation in elections for political office,
generally in the form of contributions and independent expenditures, may
freely be regulated to prevent political corruption. The Legal Center urges
the Court to continue to maintain the fundamental distinction in its cases
between corporate speech on public issues in the non-campaign context
public issues, and corporate contributions and expenditures.
<http://www.camlc.org/advocacy-court2-51.html>
http://www.camlc.org/advocacy-court2-51.html
<http://www.camlc.org/attachment.html/Nike+v.+Kasky+FINAL.pdf?id=548>
_____
Nike v. Kasky
The case involves recent charges by a number of public interest
organizations that sportswear maker Nike violated fair labor practice and
minimum wage laws in a number of its factories abroad. The company defended
itself by making public statements about both its labor practices and the
broader debate over the responsibilities of American companies operating
overseas. Several of Nike's statements were alleged to be false, in
violation of California 's Business and Professions Code. The California
Supreme Court held that Nike could be held liable under state laws governing
fair business practices.
<http://www.camlc.org/attachment.html/27_Cal_4th_939.pdf?id=549> Click here
to view the decision in its entirety.
Mark Glaze
Associate Counsel
Campaign Legal Center
1101 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 330
Washington, D.C. 20036
t: 202 736 2200
f: 202 736 2222
www.camlc.org <http://www.camlc.org/>
mg@camlc.org <mailto:mg@camlc.org>
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by
telephone at (202) 736-2200 and immediately delete this message and all its
attachments.
<mailto:mg@camlc.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:TP@Capdale.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 11:36 AM
To: mglaze@campaignlegalcenter.org
Subject: RE: Rep. Flake and the campaign to repeal Clean Money
sure
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Glaze [mailto:mglaze@campaignlegalcenter.org]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:35 AM
To: Trevor Potter
Subject: RE: Rep. Flake and the campaign to repeal Clean Money
nike brief?
Mark Glaze
Associate Counsel
Campaign Legal Center
1101 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 330
Washington, D.C. 20036
t: 202 736 2200
f: 202 736 2222
www.camlc.org <http://www.camlc.org/>
mg@camlc.org <mailto:mg@camlc.org>
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by
telephone at (202) 736-2200 and immediately delete this message and all its
attachments.
<mailto:mg@camlc.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:TP@Capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:15 PM
To: Glen Shor; Mark Glaze
Subject: FW: Rep. Flake and the campaign to repeal Clean Money
Glen and Mark:
When we file AOR comments, I'd like to forward them to the election law
list. Also true of Briefs. Can you work with me on that? Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Still [mailto:ed@votelaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:53 PM
To: election-law
Subject: Rep. Flake and the campaign to repeal Clean Money
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6) and the Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians
Committee have filed a request for an advisory opinion from the Federal
Elections Commission regarding Flake's involvement in the campaign to gather
signatures for an initiative to repeal the Clean Money program in Arizona.
The request and two supplements (plus the correspondence from the FEC
counsel's office asking for the supplementation) is 16 pages long. For a
change, the documents are presented in chronological order.
Flake wants to know how much a role he can have in the Committee and its
initiative campaign in light of the BCRA's restrictions on interaction of
state and federal campaigns.
Ed Still
http://www.votelaw.com <http://www.votelaw.com/> &
http://votelaw.blogspot.com <http://votelaw.blogspot.com/>
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.